Jeremiah 9:6

Sunday, April 26, 2009

False ClaimsGenetics is perhaps the field with the closest tie to evolutionary science. In Darwin’s time, scientists had no idea what DNA was, or how traits were passed down from parent to offspring. Darwin called this phenomenon, “inheritance”. Since the discovery of Genetics, evolutionary scientists have tried desperately to prove that macro evolution can take place through mutations to the genetic code. I’m not trying to discredit their work, I think they have made some incredible discoveries. However, they constantly claim that their discoveries are proving intelligent design to be wrong, and instead, showing that macro evolution can, (and is) happening. This post shows how what they are saying is false.

Define “Beneficial”First of all, we will determine what macro evolution requires in order to work. Some would say “beneficial mutations” are all that would be needed. This is only true if you define “beneficial” correctly. If you define beneficial as giving an organism a capability it never had before, your statement would be false. If you defined beneficial as adding new DNA to the genetic code, you would also be wrong. And if you defined it as making a creature more fit to survive in its present conditions, you would also be wrong. What would really be required for macro evolution would be mutations that cause brand new DNA to be formed, resulting in increased complexity, and a function or feature that would ensure the survival of the mutated creature. This is kind of a combination of all three incorrect statements, and although we have observed some types of beneficial mutations, we have never observed one that would truly drive evolution forward.

BacteriaThe primary way evolutionary scientists have been trying to prove evolution through genetics is through mutations in bacteria. This is because bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes, and colonies of bacteria can number in the billions, increasing the likelihood of one bacteria evolving a mutation. Because of this, in a few years we can observe mutations that would take millions of years in other animals. Because of the popularity of bacteria, (and for lack of sufficient time) I will concentrate this post on falsehoods about the evolution of bacteria. There are actually some technical complications with this method because of the way bacteria are more prone to mutations and such, but assuming that bacteria evolution is the same as macroscopic evolution, (evolution of larger animals), we still do not see the type of beneficial mutations needed to drive evolution. And it is doubtful that we ever will.The Nylon EaterOne of the most popular so called example of a beneficial mutation comes from a bacteria in Japan that has developed the ability to feed on nylon waste. This “Nylon Bug” is the product of a frame shift, a drastic type of mutation that can change a huge section of DNA with the addition or subtraction of just one nucleotide. Here’s how it works, the ability to metabolize nylon comes from a new enzyme that the mutated DNA tells the nylon bug to produce. This enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzyme, but never the less, it gives the bacterium a new ability. The DNA that represents this enzyme is divided into sections of three nucleotides. Each three nucleotides (called “codons”) represent one type of amino acid in the enzyme. Like this, GCT TTA TAC CGT… You get the point. Now a frame shift happens when a single enzyme is inserted into one of these codons, and pushes a nucleotide into the next codon. For instance, if I inserted a “T” into the beginning of my last example, it would become, TGC TTT ATA CCG T. as you can see, this is a huge difference, and this is why evolutionists are so excited. They do admit that almost all frame shifts result in nonsensical random DNA codons that are very harmful, and for this I give them credit. But I would like to point out some disappointing facts about this type of mutation that evolutionary devotees don’t ever mention. First, although they claim that this is evidence that mutations can create new DNA, all the DNA except a few random nucleotides used to create the nylon bug was already there in the first place. The DNA was just arranged differently. As a result, information was not added to the bacteria, the information only changed form. The “new” information was just hiding under a different arrangement the whole time. As a result, scientists correctly speculate that this mutation could have occurred several times in the past, but since nylon did not exist before 1935, the mutation would have been fatal if it had occurred. But in order to evolve, creatures would need to evolve huge amounts of new DNA, it would not work to simply rearrange old DNA. Second, this mutation is actually not beneficial to the bacteria. The new nylon metabolizing enzyme gives the bacteria a new “economic niche” but if the “niche” is not reliable, it causes no advantage. In the case of the nylon bug, its new found ability replaces the ability to metabolize carbohydrates, so now it can only digest nylon, which is a manmade substance. And as I stated above, this new enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of its predecessor. So really, this mutation is more harmful than helpful, and does not produce a more complex bacteria.PathogensPathogenic Bacteria are also used to combat intelligent design and push forward the evolutionary agenda. Pathogenic bacteria are the types that make you sick. In fact, any bacterium that lives by being harmful to other creatures is a pathogen. In case you were wondering, most bacteria are beneficial; it is only a relative few that are pathogenic. These few get quite a lot of attention, because no one wants another pandemic. And because news about bacteria evolving resistance to certain antibiotics is so common, it is a common myth that these bacteria are showing beneficial mutations in action. But these mutations have always been caused by a loss of information; this is not macro evolution, but bacteria that become more and more simple, harmful, and dependent on their hosts. This also explains why pathogens exist from the Christian perspective. God made the earth perfect, so we believe that pathogens were not in God’s original creation, instead they are a result of the same mutations we see today gradually “devolving” God’s original beneficial bacteria into pathogenic bacteria. Instead of seeing increasing complexity in bacteria, (which we would most definitely observe if evolution happened), we see that mutations from God’s original plan produce harmful, crippled, and disgusting bacteria that would, (at the rate they are generating) be much more common, and might have killed all living creatures by now if they truly did evolve.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Does it support, or defy evolution?Evolution is firmly rooted in the fossil record. One of the greatest triumphs of early evolutionists was to dig down through rock layers and find that the fossils got simpler and simpler as you got lower and lower. This, coupled with geological gradualism, indicated a gradual ascent of complexity needed to prove evolution happened. But this is not the only evidence left in the fossil record. In this post I will cover five different arias of the fossil record that pose huge problems with the hypothesis of macro evolution, and instead show evidence for the biblical record of a worldwide flood. But first I want to give another explanation for the simple to complex arrangement of fossils in rock layers using the world-wide flood model instead of evolution.

Survival of the FastestWhat would happen if you flooded a hilly square mile of the earth filled with clams, elephants, fish, goats, chickens, alligators, horses, worms, cows, plants, and humans, in 100 feet of water, and waited until every living thing sunk to the ground? Suppose further that every 2 hours anything that was at the bottom of the flood would be covered in sediment. What would you find in these layers? Logically, the first creatures you would find would be the worms, plant, sand clams, followed by more plants, and some unsuspecting fish that got caught in the sediment. Next might be alligators, then chickens, cows, goats, elephants, horses, and eventually humans. This would occur because the smarter and faster animals would find higher ground and survive the longest, while the more “simple” or slow animals, or the animals that live at lowest altitudes, (such as fish) would be the first to die and be covered in sediment. Trees and other plants would naturally float, but eventually get water logged and sink to the bottom throughout the flood. This is what I like to call “Survival of the Fastest”, and it happens often in more localized catastrophes. So the orientation of the fossils; from “simplest” to most “complex” is not conclusive proof for either the hypothesis of macro evolution, or the hypothesis of intelligent design. Unlike leading evolutionist would like you to believe, it can be explained either way

Fossil GraveyardsOne aspect of the fossil record that is difficult for geological gradualism to explain are the hundreds of fossil graveyards found across the earth. Fossil graveyards are layers of rock that contain thousands of fossils, sometimes fossils of animals from completely different climates, all together in a jumbled up heap. This is exactly what creationists expect to find, because we believe in a worldwide flood that would have caused currents to pick up dead animals in massive amounts, then set them down and cover them with sediments. Evolutionists however, would have to believe that animals from all over the world gathered together and then somehow got covered instantly in a local flood, or landslide, or something like that. But overall the hardest fact to explain would be animals from completely different climates, which as we know, could not live together, being found in one place.

Unchanged SpeciesFossils also give evidence that the species of animals alive today have not changed since their ancestors were frozen in time when they were fossilized. For example, ants found in fossilized tree sap, (called amber), are exactly the same as their relatives that are still alive today. So, given this evidence, it would seem like either the fossils were not formed long enough ago for evolution to have changed certain species, or not even a hint of macro evolution occurred in these species for millions of years. Of course, in some cases we do find creatures that are not alive today. This is not often interpreted as evidence for evolution, even by devout evolutionists, because most extinct species are considered mosaic animals. Mosaic means that the animals are too different from each other to show a transition like we would expect from evolution. So, instead of saying that the animals are the ancestors of modern species, they are widely accepted to simply be extinct, isolated species. This is neither evidence for creation, nor evolution, because both would expect species to eventually go extinct. I will grant that a few fossils have been found from animals that can be fitted into an evolutionary lineage. Evolutionists take this as conclusive evidence for their hypothesis. But I would like to use an analogy to explain the faultiness of this mindset.

“The Evolution of Cars”Let’s say I wanted to prove that cars evolved. To do this I decided to walk out to the local junkyard, and dig around for a few hours. Let’s say I pull out a wagon wheel, and figuring it is as simple an ancestor as I can find, I decide that the wagon wheel is a distant relative of modern cars. Moving along, I find a rubber tire, followed by a horseless carriage, then a model T, a family car, a SUV, and finally a shiny red sports car. I would have made a pretty convincing case to the public if they didn’t know that cars can’t reproduce. The problem is that when I went to the junkyard, I was already convinced that cars evolved. Instead, if I went to the junkyard with an open mind, I might have arrived at the right conclusion; that each vehicle was designed individually, but the same basic designs, (such as the wheel) were used multiple times by the designer because they worked well. In the end, if we knew that macro evolution is a scientific probability, then interpreting the supposed links we see today as evidence for macro evolution would be plausible, just like if cars could reproduce, the hypothesis I mentioned above would be plausible. However, because of the extreme improbability of macro evolution, I think intelligent design is a much more valid way to interpret these “links”.

Missing LinksOf course the most famous problem evolutionists have encountered in fossils is the extreme lack of links between supposed ancestors, and their modern offspring. Evolution scientists have claimed to find quite a few ape-men that they claimed was conclusive proof for macro evolution. The problem is every one of these supposed links have been proved to be a true man, a true ape, or a hoax. In one case, the supposed missing link was nothing more than a pig tooth! The genealogy of the modern horse is said to be the most complete and impressive set of links that scientists have found to date. In textbooks the four supposed ancestors of the horse are show in a convincing pattern; from smallest to largest. But there is a catch; you see although they transition smoothly from smallest to largest, the rest of their anatomy is not at all a smooth transition. Instead, the number of ribs, for instance, varies from 15 to 19 with no discernible pattern. The number of toes also ranges from three to none in no discernible pattern. It seems like scientists are more concerned with making their research convincing to the gullible public than they are with accuracy and consistency. You know, we do see animals that can be sorted and categorized to look like they evolved. But if macro evolution was true, we should expect millions of fossils showing very gradual change, instead we see large gaps in the evolutionary tree that have no excuse not to be filled.

Punctuated EquilibriumScientists have tried to come up with excuses though, because the latest model of macro evolution, (punctuated equilibrium), claims to virtually eliminate the need for transitionary forms. The ironic thing is that this idea is based on a complete lack of evidence. Scientists must believe punctuated equilibrium to be true because it is the only way to preserve their theory. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution takes place very rapidly, but with long periods of waiting in between. This would allow minimum transitionary species and generations of fully formed species to leave fossils in between. Scientists are still speculating on what could cause such periodic, and rapid change. Sunspots, Radiation, Chemicals, no one knows for sure, but one thing is similar in all cases, they expect hazardous conditions to improve life. They reason that even though the majority of mutations would kill the creatures, a few would survive and come away with beneficial mutations. This is all pure speculation, and is in my mind way harder to believe then creation.

PreservationFossils all around the world and in every rock layer indicate that they were buried by massive amounts of water. For instance; jelly fish have no hard features, this makes them almost impossible to fossilize. The fact that we have found jelly fish in anywhere is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. If a jelly fish dies on a beach, or floats around lifeless in the ocean, it will decompose in a matter of days! The best way to explain fossilized jelly fish is that they were buried almost instantly in a huge flood. Also, scientists have found soft dinosaur flesh preserved in glaciers this too is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. How long do you think flesh could be preserved in ice? 10,000 years maybe, but even a million years is a hundred times longer than that! Even the shear number of fossils found all over the world indicates one huge cataclysmic event, not millions of years of geological gradualism. In addition, we have found soft dinosaur flesh, along with mammoths, and even fruit trees in glaciers. This indicates that dinosaurs were alive not too long ago, (as opposed to millions of years ago).

Timeline IssuesFossils also interfere with the evolutionary timeline taught in schools. Take for example the coelacanth this fish was previously thought to be extinct since about 70 million years ago. But in 1938 fishermen pulled one in of the coast Madagascar, and since then over 30 specimens have been found. So how did scientists figure out that the coelacanth went extinct 70 million years ago? Well, coelacanth fossils are found in abundance in rock layers supposedly older than 70 million years, but not in the rock layers above. Since we know that coelacanths are still alive, we must assume that coelacanths avoided being fossilized for 70 million years. Considering the multitude of fossils found in lower layers, the odds of this feat are ridiculous. Another timeline issue is that of the genealogy of the horse. Although textbooks make it clear that this genealogy is conclusive evidence for evolution, the fossils of the different horses are not found in the correct order in the geological column. Instead, the supposedly more primitive horse relatives are often found above, or in the same layer as the more “modern” horse. In fact, in some places, the fossils of horse-like animals are found in reverse order.

Man and DinosaurFossils also show man and dinosaur lived at the same time. Footprints of dinosaurs walking in the same mud as man, and even human footprints inside dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in rock. I was recently at a museum in Texas where hundreds of dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in soft stone. Our tour guide was telling us about how the dinosaurs that left these fossils died millions of years before people. When my brother Noah asked about the human footprints found beside dinosaurs in other places, our tour guide responded, “Well, they THINK they have found human footprints, but you can believe whatever you want”. Of course, she never questioned the fact that the fossil footprints at her museum were genuine. The reason she was hesitant to believe the human footprints were real was that it went against macro evolution, not because the footprints were overly suspect. In one case, I know that extensive testing was done on one human footprint, found in the same sedimentary rock as a dinosaur. Scientists tested the density of the rock, and found that the depression was made by pressure identical to what a human foot would do in mud, and could not be achieved by carving tools.